1829 Andrew Jackson - Jackson Defends Forced Indian Removal

During the 1820's the Cherokee nation was flourishing and established their own independent government on Georgia land prompting the Georgia State legislature to pass a series of state laws that stripped them their of their rights as a sovereign nation. In 1829, when the Cherokee Nation sent Chief John Ross to ask the Federal government for help, Secretary of War John H. Eaton informed Chief Ross that that the President was backing the state of Georgia in this matter setting the stage for the forced removal of both the Cherokee and Creek nations and the infamous 'Trail of Tears'. During the 'Trail of Tears' an estimated 2,000 to 8,000 of the 16,543 relocated Cherokee perished during the relocation. In his first State of the Union Address, President Andrew Jackson defended his decision to side with Georgia and force the Cherokee nation to emigrate west of the Mississippi.

By time Andrew Jackson was inaugurated as President, the Cherokee Nation had not only formed an independent civil government including a police force and a judicial system, but had adopted their own Constitution. Their leaders spoke English, and they had translated the Bible into Cherokee Syllabry. They even had their own printing press and published a bilingual paper called the 'Cherokee Phoenix'. In 1825, they began a large public works project to build a council house, courthouse and public square in northwestern Georgia in the Cherokee village of New Echota. Cherokee Chief Ridge once likened it to Baltimore, the largest city he had ever seen, but just days before Andrew Jackson was inaugurated Georgia passed a law that annexed Cherokee land and extended their state laws into Cherokee territory creating a constitutional fight over States' rights versus the Cherokee Nation. President Andrew Jackson was forced to choose between Georgia states' rights and the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation.

Jackson used his first State of the Union address to make it clear that he would side with Georgia's right to claim sovereignty and support Indian relocation.   First, he explained how Indian civilization program started by Thomas Jefferson had proved to be a failure.    Rather than allow them to adapt to civilized life on their own lands, the United States had purchased those lands and pushed them ever further to the west, keeping them in a wandering state.  Because of this, the Indian population no longer trusted the United States and looked to us as being unjust and indifferent to their fate.  The Civilization failed because the Indians failed to assimilate into American culture and failed to accept the laws of the United States. Most of the Indian tribes were just pushed further to the west and retained there "savage habits".  Those few that did remain, like the Cherokee were now attempting to create independent governments within the limits of states like Georgia and Alabama.  In these states, the trouble had been brewing since 1823 when the Georgia state government began agitating for the removal of the Cherokee Nation according to agreements made with the federal government in 1802.  In 1823, federal negotiators met with the Cherokee National Council at New Echota but failed to reach any agreement. Fearing that the federal government would fail to ever act, the Georgia State legislature enacted a series of laws that stripped the Cherokee nation of their rights under Georgia state law.  Their intentions were to force Andrew Jackson whom they believed favored removal, to force the Cherokee to leave their state.  In response, Chief John Ross reached out directly to Congress and found support from adversaries of Jackson such as Henry Clay and Daniel Webster.  Nevertheless, President Jackson stood firm in his support for Georgia and Alabama.

"The condition and ulterior destiny of the Indian tribes within the limits of some of our States have become objects of much interest and importance. It has long been the policy of Government to introduce among them the arts of civilization, in the hope of gradually reclaiming them from a wandering life. This policy has, however, been coupled with another wholly incompatible with its success. Professing a desire to civilize and settle them, we have at the same time lost no opportunity to purchase their lands and thrust them farther into the wilderness. By this means they have not only been kept in a wandering state, but been led to look upon us as unjust and indifferent to their fate. Thus, though lavish in its expenditures upon the subject, Government has constantly defeated its own policy, and the Indians in general, receding farther and farther to the west, have retained their savage habits. A portion, however, of the Southern tribes, having mingled much with the whites and made some progress in the arts of civilized life, have lately attempted to erect an independent government within the limits of Georgia and Alabama. These States, claiming to be the only sovereigns within their territories, extended their laws over the Indians, which induced the latter to call upon the United States for protection.

Under these circumstances the question presented was whether the General Government had a right to sustain those people in their pretensions. The Constitution declares that "no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State" without the consent of its legislature. If the General Government is not permitted to tolerate the erection of a confederate State within the territory of one of the members of this Union against her consent, much less could it allow a foreign and independent government to establish itself there."

While Jackson's words and actions may have been pleasing to Georgia, they were met with much opposition from his political opponents and many of the Northern states.   Jackson attacked their opposition by pointing out that Georgia and Alabama had the same constitutional rights as any other state in the Union.  He asked Maine or New York how they would react if Indian tribes erected an independent government in their own state.  For example, would New York allow each remnant of the Six Nations of the Grand River to establish an independent government rather than submit to U.S. laws on their reservation lands? With a series of questions like this, Jackson made it very clear that any other state would have taken the same action as Georgia or Alabama.  Finally, given the current situation, Jackson informed the Indians in Georgia and Alabama that they must either submit to the laws of those states or emigrate to lands beyond the Mississippi. 

"Georgia became a member of the Confederacy which eventuated in our Federal Union as a sovereign State, always asserting her claim to certain limits, which, having been originally defined in her colonial charter and subsequently recognized in the treaty of peace, she has ever since continued to enjoy, except as they have been circumscribed by her own voluntary transfer of a portion of her territory to the United States in the articles of cession of 1802. Alabama was admitted into the Union on the same footing with the original States, with boundaries which were prescribed by Congress. 

There is no constitutional, conventional, or legal provision which allows them less power over the Indians within their borders than is possessed by Maine or New York. Would the people of Maine permit the Penobscot tribe to erect an independent government within their State? And unless they did would it not be the duty of the General Government to support them in resisting such a measure? Would the people of New York permit each remnant of the six Nations within her borders to declare itself an independent people under the protection of the United States? Could the Indians establish a separate republic on each of their reservations in Ohio? And if they were so disposed would it be the duty of this Government to protect them in the attempt? If the principle involved in the obvious answer to these questions be abandoned, it will follow that the objects of this Government are reversed, and that it has become a part of its duty to aid in destroying the States which it was established to protect. 

Actuated by this view of the subject, I informed the Indians inhabiting parts of Georgia and Alabama that their attempt to establish an independent government would not be countenanced by the Executive of the United States, and advised them to emigrate beyond the Mississippi or submit to the laws of those States."

Just a few months later May 28, 1830 Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act of 1830.   The law authorized the president to negotiate with the Indian tribes for their removal to federal territory west of the Mississippi river.    The act was met with resistance not only of the Indian tribes such as the Cherokee nation, but also members of the Whig party.   With the help of Senator Daniel Webster and Henry Clay among others, a delegation of Cherokee led by Chief John Ross along with William Wirt, former attorney general under James Monroe brought the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.    The Supreme Court heard the case, but declined to rule on the merits, citing that the framers of the Constitution did not really consider the Indian tribes as foreign nations.  Without a constitution or strong central government, the Cherokee Nation did not have the right to bring a suit against Georgia in the U.S. courts.  Ultimately, Chief Justice Marshall ruled against the Cherokee stating that the framers of our Constitution never really considered the Indian tribes to be foreign nations, but rather "domestic dependent nation[s]".    This validated Jackson's case for removal, but in 1831, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision and ruled that the Cherokee Nation was sovereign.   Nevertheless, Jackson refused to uphold the ruling and directed that the Cherokee Nation be removed by force using the U.S. Army in some cases. 

 An interesting side note here.   Earlier in this same State of the Union, Andrew Jackson described the United States as a nation being blessed by God more than any other nation as the special guardian of adherence to "written constitutions".  It may be subtle here, but in a way, Jackson was already discounting the Cherokee constitution and their status as a foreign nation. By his actions, Andrew Jackson made it clear that he did not recognize the Cherokee as a sovereign nation over the states' rights of Georgia.

Two years later, after President Jackson described the latest progress made in the removal of Indians from Ohio, he shared that these policies of Indian Removal would put to rest all conflicting claims of jurisdiction.   Jackson further defended his policies by responding to any who would say that such removal would put them beyond the reach of charity and Christian instruction from the states.   At last, Jackson said that across the Mississippi, the Indians would be able to move towards civilization at their own pace.   I believe that Jackson believed that Removal was best for both the states and the Indians.  He may have been wrong in his thinking,but he was consistent in his reasoning.

"Thus will all conflicting claims to jurisdiction between the States and the Indian tribes be put to rest. It is pleasing to reflect that results so beneficial, not only to the States immediately concerned, but to the harmony of the Union, will have been accomplished by measures equally advantageous to the Indians. What the native savages become when surrounded by a dense population and by mixing with the whites may be seen in the miserable remnants of a few Eastern tribes, deprived of political and civil rights, forbidden to make contracts, and subjected to guardians, dragging out a wretched existence, without excitement, without hope, and almost without thought. 

But the removal of the Indians beyond the limits and jurisdiction of the States does not place them beyond the reach of philanthropic aid and Christian instruction. On the contrary, those whom philanthropy or religion may induce to live among them in their new abode will be more free in the exercise of their benevolent functions than if they had remained within the limits of the States, embarrassed by their internal regulations. Now subject to no control but the superintending agency of the General Government, exercised with the sole view of preserving peace, they may proceed unmolested in the interesting experiment of gradually advancing a community of American Indians from barbarism to the habits and enjoyments of civilized life."

References

Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2018). First Annual Message | The American Presidency Project. [online] Available at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/first-annual-message-3 [Accessed 13 Nov. 2018].

Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2018). Third Annual Message | The American Presidency Project. [online] Available at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/third-annual-message-3 [Accessed 21 Aug. 2019].

En.wikipedia.org. (2018). Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_Nation_v._Georgia [Accessed 13 Nov. 2018].

Smithsonian. (2018). The Cherokees vs. Andrew Jackson. [online] Available at: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-cherokees-vs-andrew-jackson-277394/ [Accessed 13 Nov. 2018].

Wagner, D. (2018). 1828 John Qunicy Adams - Constitution of the Cherokee Nation. [online] Stateoftheunionhistory.com. Available at: http://www.stateoftheunionhistory.com/2015/07/1828-john-qunicy-adams-constitutin-of.html [Accessed 13 Nov. 2018].